Nancy Pelosi Calls For Catholic Church Leaders to Work With Government On The Amnesty Issue

Liberals have been perverting the original intent of "separation of church and state" for years. The original intent was not to prohibit prayer in public schools. As a matter of fact, the Congressional printing office printed bibles to be used in public schools. The original intent was not to keep religion out of the public square. There are numerous biblical references in public buildings, courthouses and national monuments that are engraved in stone. The original intent was not to keep religion out of "official government business". Politicians and witnesses in court place their hand on a bible and swear oaths to God, our creator.

The phrase "separation of church and state" was derived from this clause in the first amendment of the US constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

This clause was intended to limit the power of the federal government. This clause was intended to keep Government from collaborating with churches. This clause was a safeguard against the US becoming a theocracy where Government and State act as one.

Today, Nancy Pelosi was reported as saying the following in a speech to Catholic leaders:

I would hope that there’s one thing that we can do working together as we go forward that speaks to what the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person — and that is on the subject of immigration,” Pelosi said in her remarks. “Because I think the Church is going to have to play a very major role in how we, in how people are treated.”

Pelosi is influencing religious leaders. She is suggesting that religious leaders "work together" with government leaders. This is a violation of our constitution's first amendment. IMHO, this is an impeachable offense. House leader Nancy Pelosi is third in line to the Presidency. She is only 2 heartbeats away from becoming president herself. She has violated her sacred oath (to God) to uphold the constitution of the US. She needs to be impeached.

Wake up America, our lawmakers are not following the US constitution in a big way and no one is paying attention.

Here is a link to a related article: http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/05/10/nancy-pelosi-asks-the-catholic-church-to-preach-in-favor-of-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens/

IMHO, government funds should not be used to support Churches (faith based initiatives). Church money should not be used to support government. This can only result in undue influence. Pelosi is using her powerful position as speaker of the house to influence and pressure religious leaders. This is unconstitutional.

Is Charitable Giving On The Rise?

In today's day and age, politicians are preaching that it is patriotic to pay taxes and that "rich people" have an obligation tho share their wealth. However, I believe that that true charitable giving only exists when it is done voluntarily. Today's forced charities, through taxpayer financed social programs, are crowding out many genuine charities from helping people on a voluntary and personal level. Forced giving, through high taxes and government social programs, embitters both the givers and receivers, who feel resentment for the other group.

I have heard statistics that claim that charitable giving has increased over the past 40 years, this does not seem to ring true based on my personal observations. Statistics can be manipulated and used by people who do not debate in good faith, because they know that their statistics have loopholes.

The following are examples of voluntary charitable contributions that I witnessed 30 years ago. These examples may not have not shown up on any tax returns or ledger sheets, and may not be included in statistical studies on charitable giving. I can not prove or disprove their affect on the "charitable giving" statistics, however, they are surly omitted.

Thirty years ago,I spent a year in The Dalles Oregon, working on a farm. The majority of local people attended church every Sunday. The tradition of tithing was often discussed, and I believe that most parishioners practiced this tradition. This tradition requires that congregants donate 1/10th of their income to the church. This charitable giving is provable by tax records in many cases. However, many people believe that charitable giving should be a completely selfless act. These people choose not to report their donations on their tax returns, because they want their act of charitable giving be untarnished by benefiting from a tax deduction.

Also, I personally witnessed several physical acts of charity that were not likely to show up on a tax form or ledger sheet. One example is when the Church Pastor asked Charlie S (the farm owner that I was living with), if he could help out a homeless trio (a husband, wife and brother). These people were drifters, who's junk car finally "died" in The Dalles. They had no where to live and no money. They went to local Churches daily for food and clothing.

Mr. S put this trio up in a vacant "pickers shack" on his farm, equipped with 2 beds, a wood burning stove and a refrigerator. Mr. S offered them work, not because he was shorthanded, but because he wanted to help them get on their feet by their own efforts. The wages that Mr. S payed this trio did not show up anywhere as a charitable contribution, but that is exactly what they were.

Another example of heartfelt yet unreported charitable giving, was when Mr. S's brother, who was an accountant, flied my delinquent tax return for me without charge. I told him that I did not file my tax return for the previous 2 years, but I was sure that I was entitled to a refund. Mr. S's brother did my taxes for me, without asking for any compensation. Several weeks later I received a nice check from the IRS.

Another example is that their "Church's School" wanted to construct a running track around their ball field. The most expensive cost of its construction was the several hundred tons of red clay required to pave the track with. The Church found a clay Quarry that was willing to donate the quantity of clay needed, but the Church would have to find a way to transport it. The pastor called many of his parishioners who owned various medium and heavy duty trucks, capable of picking up and delivering small quantities of clay. Mr. S agreed to help the Church transport the clay.

Mr. S owned a small dump truck that he used for picking up grain and seeds and delivering manure. I "rode shotgun" with Mr. S's son when we spent an entire Saturday, making several trips, to and from, the far off quarry. We could only haul about 7 tons on each load. Mr. S spent over a hundred of dollars on fuel and we had a tire blow out on our last load, which cost hundreds to repair. I don't know for sure, but I doubt that Charlie S claimed these expenses as charitable donations. We were not alone, there was a whole fleet of trucks doing the same thing as us. By the end of the Day, the clay had been delivered.

On the other hand, some of today's charities are scams, that spend a much of their income on salaries and operating costs. Other charities are little more than political organizations, that are pushing a political agenda. ACORN comes to mind. There are also, non-profit organizations that are a front for terrorist organizations. They funnel funds to terrorists overseas. Donations to these organizations, show up as charitable donations in statistical reports. There are also many charitable contributions to causes that claim to be fighting global warming. Global warming is a threat that is not proved to be real, yet these donations show up as charitable contributions, even though their benefit is questionable. Also, many people donate unusable items, such as broken down cars, trucks and boats, and torn clothing or worn out underwear, for the express purpose of receiving a tax deduction. I would not consider these examples as charity, but they are included in statistics.

I believe that voluntary charity is beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. Charitable giving uplifts one's spirit and strengthens one's soul. When the relationship between giver and receiver is personal and genuine, everyone benefits.

Sarah Palin, Hate Crimes and Halloween

I have written in the past about how I disagree about the concept of "hate crimes". I have written that crimes should be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the nature of the crime itself. Punishment should not be more sever if the motivation for the crime is deemed to be bigotry. Crimes of vandalism, violence and those that incite violence, are serious crimes, and should be prosecuted and punished zealously, regardless of the motive. I believe that it is wrong to dole out additional punishment in order to appease certain minorities groups and be more lenient to other criminals due to political correctness.

A good example of why hate crimes are intrinsically unfair, is an incident that is occurring in Los Angeles this week. A "waste of human flesh" (I hope that I did not commit a hate crime with that description),decided to decorate his house for Halloween. This decoration included a mannequin, that was made to resemble Sarah Palin, hanging in effigy from the top of his house. Of course when this "waste of human flesh" was interviewed, he said that his display was merely his expression of art.


This display is not considered a hate crime, despite the recent outcry that displaying a noose, is an expression of hate against African Americans. These claims of noose related hate crimes were stirred up by the controversy and misinformation circulated about the Jena six, and subsequent nooses that turned up around the country, many of which later proved to be hoaxes. These random nooses, were all investigated as hate crimes.

Surprisingly,many commentators have agreed that if Barack Obama was hung in effigy, that would be considered a "hate crime", because Obama is black. Current law classifies hate crimes as crimes that are specifically targeted against people because of their race, religion or national origin. Women are not protected under hate crime laws.

Interestingly, the man who decorated his house for Halloween, with a dead replica of Sarah Palin, swinging from a noose, appears to be a homosexual, a minority that is not currently protected under hate crime laws. However, if proposition 8 fails in California on election day, homosexuals could become a protected minority under hate crime laws. Homosexual activists feel that churches, that preach that homosexual behavior is sinful, would like to see these churches and their ministers prosecuted under hate crime laws. The US senate is considering a bill that would expand hate-crime legislation to include homosexuals. Legislation is being proposed in England, allowing parishioners to sue ministers for preaching that homosexual behavior is a sin.

What will come next? Will preachers be charged with hate crimes for preaching that premarital sex is sinful? Will preachers be sued for preaching that adultery is sinful? Will Christianity be banned due to its "hateful" beliefs? This is absurd, because Christianity promotes love and fellowship between all men an women. Christianity preaches love, compassion, forgiveness, self improvement and helping your fellow man. Christianity acknowledges that all men are sinners, and offers us a path to eternal salvation. Christianity does not stand for hate in any way, shape or form.

I believe that laws already exist on the books that outlaw public displays that are abhorrent, repulsive, detestable, obscene. It is obvious to anyone with common sense, that this display of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose, violates these laws. Calling this "art" for a Halloween display, is convoluted logic and defies reason. It is obviously a political statement that crosses the line, because this display is abhorrent, repulsive, detestable and obscene.

As well as being a vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin is also someone's daughter, wife and mother. How would you like to see your loved-one hanging in effigy, as part of someone's twiated idea of a Halloween display? Would this so-called "artist" stand for a likeness of his lover hanging from the roof of a neighbors house, who merely claims that he has the right to express himself with that kind of a Halloween art display? I think not. Allegations of gay-bashing and hate crimes would likely ensue. Hate crime laws are unfair. They are not necessary, if we merely enforce the laws that already exist, dispassionately and reasonably.

To go down a path that prosecutes crimes to appease vocal minorities, while ignoring others, is dangerous, unfair and un-American. We should be judged on our behavior, rationally and reasonably, not emotionally. Justice should be dispensed dispassionately and without prejudice, according to the "actions" of the perpetrator and not the emotions that his crime stirs up.

Freedom Prospers When Religion Is Vibrant

There are many reasons why thriving civilizations fail, however, three examples of the failure of societies at the height of their wealth and power are: the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire and the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although I am not a historical or biblical scholar, I believe that these prosperous civilizations were at the height of their immorality, debauchery and open homosexuality at the time of their demise.

A democracy can not sustain itself upon the view of the majority alone. It is quite obvious that views held by the majority are not necessarily proved as correct. There are countless examples, including that at one time, the vast majority of people believed that the Earth was flat. A democracy can only sustain itself if it is built upon a moral base which is founded upon universal spiritual principles, otherwise it will devolve into "mob-rule". An example would be the Palestinian democracy in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians democratically elected the terrorist group "Hamas" to lead their country. Once in power, they began to fire rockets into Israel, while ignoring their peoples needs for food, infrastructure (sewers, electricity, etc.), and productive work. This would not occur, in a democracy restrained by spiritual principles. Democracy without moral restraint, will not bring about freedom, peace and prosperity.

I often hear liberals claim that you can not legislate morality. This is preposterous. Most of our laws that our country was founded on were based on principles that are spelled out in the "Ten Commandments". We still honor most laws against lying, cheating , stealing and murdering which are moral principles that are laid out in the Ten Commandments. Up until recently we had laws against adultery, sodomy and doing business on the Sabbath. In my opinion, the decay we are seeing in morality is attributable to our society becoming more secular and less religious. Although I am not religious in the traditional sense, I do have a strong belief in God, the eternal soul and divine judgment. If these principles are removed or diminished from the American culture, I can see no other outcome than the demise of our unique American culture and the fall of our great nation.

I often hear liberals say that this country was founded in sin, due to slavery. To the contrary, the "Declaration if Independence", our Constitution and our "Bill of Rights" were based on spiritual principles and written in such a way that would eventually lead to the end of slavery. 750,000 men gave their lives in our most bloody war which resulted in the end of slavery. Please read the lyrics to all five verses of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic", which was a famous marching song of the Civil War. This hymn brings tears to my eyes because it puts morality and God above life itself. Years later, it was Christian leaders who started the civil rights movement which successfully removed discrimination, based on race, from our laws and our culture.

Click here for the lyrics: "Battle Hymn of the Republic"

Click here for a short article about the hymn's history.

For a real tear-jerking experience, click on the video below and listen to the the US Army Chorus perform three verses of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic". This rendition was performed on the White house lawn during a ceremony welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to Washington DC on April 16, 2008.



One of the many verses that always brings tears to my eyes is:
"As he [Christ] died to make men holy, let us die to make them free"

Ronald Reagan said: "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged".

John Adams said: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Left to our own devices, we will eventually devolve to our base instincts, which will lead to anarchy (total freedom without restraints) or a totalitarian government (no freedom) will rise to power, in order to restore order. Only a secular democratic government, restrained and balanced by religious morality, can yield both maximum freedom and order. This is the unique American culture that made our nation free, prosperous and powerful. Belief in a power greater than ourselves, humbles us and gives us reason to build and maintain a just, free, prosperous and powerful nation. At times we must sacrifice our own, pleasures, wealth and even our very lives, for just and noble causes which bring us closer to God and purchase the freedom and prosperity for future generations. Our nation stands free and strong today because many of our predecessors have chosen to make such sacrifices. The extraordinary motivation for such sacrifice usually comes from desire to serve God, family and country. Today's liberals often seek to diminish the value of Judeo-Christian religions, the traditional family, and our unique American culture. These are required for the continued freedom, prosperity and very survival of America as we know it today.